Bombay HC’s larger Bench to settle if caste scrutiny committees have power to recall orders based on fraud

The Supreme Court of Bombay mentioned the question of whether the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Law, the Caste Investigation Committees under the 2000, or whether they could remember their own orders when they were obtained through fraud, false declaration or material facts.

The recommendation was held on August 4, 2025 by Justice Manish Pitale and a section of YG Khobragade on the Aurangabad Bank of the Supreme Court of Bombay. Conditional validity certificates by the Kinwat -based tribal certificate examination committee located in Sambhajinagar headquartered in Sambhajinagar.

On May 15, 2025, the Committee canceled its certificates with the fraud and suppression of the relevant facts.

The petition owners represented by lawyer Pratap V. Jadhavar argued that the review committees did not have the authority to review or recall their decisions. They relied on decisions such as Raqesh Bhimashankar Umbarje / Maharashtra State and Bharat Nagu Garud / Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court decided that after a certificate of validity, they decided that the committee could be found as interfer in accordance with Article 226 of the Supreme Court.

Additional government beggars SP Sonpawale and Saie S. Joshi argued that the review committees should maintain the authority to recall the certificates obtained by fraud, even if they are not explicitly stated in the 2000 Law. They made decisions such as Rajeshwar Baburao Bone, where the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court repaired a committee of a committee to cancel a fraudulent certificate. The state claimed that fraud has revived every legal action and could not be protected by procedural restrictions.

After hearing the discussion, he observed that different banks of the Supreme Court of the Council received contradictory opinions on the subject and that the excessive use of the recycling powers could unstable and observed that the examination committees would weaken the integrity of the confirmation process.

He said that the review committees have unjustified forces and that they are better positioned than written courts to evaluate the real fraud in caste allegations.

“However, within itself, the review committee can not resist the power to remember the previous order obtained on the basis of the suppression of fraud, false declaration or material facts under any circumstances. It cannot be the basis of re -opening such cases.

Since it has some powers similar to a civil court compared to Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, it is important to state that it is more equipped to examine the aspects of fraud, manufacturing and miscarriage.

We see that the purity of the process, which was once found to be dirty, should be addressed, and therefore, there are important questions that should be solved by a larger bank of this court.

“For this reason, we apply to the rule of the rules of the Supreme Court of Bombay of the 1960 Bombay to formulate the questions to be answered by a larger bench in the light of the conflict in the above -mentioned views of the various department benches of this court.”

The court asked five questions:

(i) Whether the examination committee created in accordance with the 2000 law has the power to remember the order due to fraud, false declaration or suppression of material facts?

(ii) A creature of the charter, that is, as the 2000 law, does not have a significant examination power due to the absence of such provisions within the scope of the regulation in question, but does fraud rejects the natural power to remember his own order because of the suppression of wrong separation or material facts?

(iii) If the examination committee has such a limited power to remember the order for the above -mentioned reasons, what are the same contours and which measures should be applied to avoid the common recall of orders?

(iv) In the light of the conditions in the 7 (2) section of the 2000 Law, whether such a protection contains the necessity of searching for the permission of the High Court?

(V) Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje etc. Maharashtra State (above) and Bharat Nagu Garud etc. Maharashtra province (above) needs to be revised to a limited extent mentioned above?

The issue was placed in the chief justice of the Bombay Supreme Court, as they created a larger bench to decide the issue.

Published – 07 August 2025 06:48